Talk:Hobbes and Enlightenment Politics, Science, Aesthetics/@comment-24423803-20140128021519/@comment-24416604-20140128200444
Reed, I definitely agree with your point that "Hobbes account of the creation of government necessitates an already existing social order, an inconsistancy that shows his account of man lacking." Throughout the Levaithan, he constantly describes how man interacts, why men revoke their social contracts, the obligations to the sovereign, and etc., but he never explains (as Aristotle does) the natural social tendency that man has. As you said, Hobbes account is valid "only after the onset of civilized, ordered living." Hobbes' flaw is that he never explains the building blocks society (which Aristotle would argue to be family, village, then state.) That being said, I am about to jump into what I believe is at the heart of our discussion. (Please correct me if I am wrong!) Aristotle places the whole over the individual. He believes that because of man's social nature, that man behaves, as you say, with "ruthless self-interest for the good of the group." His proof is that "the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole." On the other hand, ''Hobbes places the individual over the whole, ''in turn emphasizing the need of the consent of each individual and his smaller group. Hobbes explains, "Nor can any law be made, till they have agreed upon the person that shall make it." Once a sovereign ruler or a "common power" is chosen by the individual and smaller groups, then laws can be made and a greater society formed. Hobbes writes, "Where there is no common powerby the individual, there is no law society." Going back to my to my earlier post, I believe this is (in part) why modern states "fail." The process of forming a society is a two-part process. In my (and I believe Hobbes opinion), man must first consent to a ruler or government, and then the governing body will enforce the laws of society. In many failed states, this process happened in reverse. A government was formed (or given a nice piece of paper saying they were a country--this happened a lot when colonial powers pulled out of African and Middle Eastern countries), but there was no consent to follow that new government by the people for two reasons: the people had not collectively chosen it, and it had no force to empower itself. lending to revolutions, civil wars, internal strife, etc. Basically, the ''whole came before the individual. ''This brings us back to Aristotle and Hobbes differences. Yes, man does have a social desire/nature, but only when it is his decision and in what he believes to be his ultimate self interest. (I would even argue that many people in failed states have been denied their right to consent to a self determined government.) Of course, nation building or the creation of society is a slow, very imperfect process. Ultimately, though, I argue that the consent of the individual empowers the governing body, thus creating what we percieve to be a more binding social tendency of man. What are your thoughts? Also, thank you for clarifying Hobbes' flaw to recognize the social nature of man.